Debates of March 27th, 2023

Question No.1208—

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

With regard to the $20 million federal grant provided to Toronto’s Harbourfront Centre in August 2021 for upgrades and repairs: (a) was there a public consultative requirement for the centre to facilitate public engagement and inclusion in the formulation of the centre’s repair and reconstruction planning and updates on activities; (b) if the answer to (a) is affirmative, was Canadian Heritage advised on when the consultations were held and, if so, when did these consultations occur; (c) what specific projects did the federal government’s grant initially support; (d) what projects were subsequently replaced by the centre’s decision to add new projects and was any part of the grant allocated for the construction of retail commercial outlets; (e) did Canadian Heritage approve any of the subsequent project objectives, and, if so, which ones; and (f) on what date was Canadian Heritage informed by the centre of the change in plans related to eliminating the existing public skating rink and did Canadian Heritage approve this change?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), as an independent not-for-profit organization, Harbourfront Centre is responsible for setting priorities for its ongoing infrastructure projects and making its own decisions accordingly. There is no public consultative requirement as part of the contribution agreement between PCH and Harbourfront Centre.

With regard to part (b), there is no response.

With regard to part (c), as part of the recovery fund for arts, culture, heritage and sport sectors under budget 2021, $20 million was awarded to Harbourfront Centre for capital infrastructure work done over two years, from 2021 to 2023. This funding sought to address urgent capital improvements and repairs to update performance spaces and venues; address health and safety elements to welcome back artists, visitors, audiences and staff; provide greater accessibility throughout the site; achieve reductions in energy and water use targeting future zero-carbon levels; and allow for continued urgent capital repairs. The contribution agreement for these funds was signed on August 18, 2021.

With regard to parts (d), (e) and (f), following an interim report from Harbourfront Centre on October 4, 2022, an amendment was made to the agreement to reflect changes to the schedule and project list, signed November 10, 2022. These updates respect its contribution agreement requirements and fiscal responsibility towards the project and represent good stewardship of public funds.

Question No.1212—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

With regard to the government's reaction to reports that United States National Guard troops have been handing out bus tickets to migrants in New York City for travel to Roxham Road: (a) has the government made any representations with officials in the United States, including New York City municipal officials, to stop this, and, if so, what are the details of those representations, including the (i) date, (ii) government officials who made the representation, (iii) title of the official in the United States who received the representation; (b) what assurances, if any, has the government received that the handing out of bus tickets will stop; and (c) what is the government's estimate on the number of individuals who have crossed the border at Roxham Road after receiving these bus tickets?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, is concerned, the answer is as follows. With regard to part (a), engaging with United States officials is not the exclusive purview of IRCC. As of February 6, 2023, IRCC officials had not made any representations with U.S. officials.

With regard to part (b), engaging with U.S. officials is not the exclusive purview of IRCC. As of February 6, 2023, IRCC had not received assurances.

With regard to part (c), the collection of information on asylum seekers at Roxham Road is outside IRCC’s purview. IRCC does not collect or use data on means of arrival to ports of entry as part of the asylum claim process, as it is not considered part of the determination decision-making process.

Question No.1216—

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

With regard to the National Research Council buildings located at 435 and 445 Ellice Avenue, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, that were declared surplus in 2012: (a) where is the government in the process of selling these buildings; (b) are any federal employees still working at either building, and, if so, how many are working at each; (c) are there any non-federal government tenants who rent space in these buildings, and, if so, who are the tenants; (d) are there any non-federal government employees currently working in either building, and, if so, how many and who is their employer; (e) has there been any agreement reached with the Public Health Agency of Canada or the Manitoba Métis Federation and are there any other interested parties; and f) what is the current cost to maintain each of these buildings?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), the Ellice Avenue property of National Research Council Canada, or NRC, was declared surplus in 2012, and the NRC began the process of selling the property in 2013. This process included consultation with indigenous communities and has involved various interested parties over the years. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the spring of 2020, the Public Health Agency of Canada, or PHAC, identified new and urgent requirements for laboratory space and entered into a collaboration with the NRC on life science and pandemic-related work. This collaboration included work at the Ellice Avenue property. The NRC is committed to supporting the Government of Canada’s life sciences and biomanufacturing strategy, as well as pandemic response and preparedness. The past and current collaborations in support of the work of PHAC will be critical in achieving outcomes in these areas.

With regard to part (b), there are 71 federal employees working at 435 Ellice Avenue and 80 federal employees working at 445 Ellice Avenue.

With regard to part (c), the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority rents space at 435 Ellice Avenue.

With regard to part (d), there are 70 employees of the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority working at 435 Ellice Avenue.

With regard to part (e), given the new and ongoing government needs for laboratory facilities in Winnipeg, the NRC has decided to retain the property. The NRC continues to explore possible leasing arrangements for the office tower portion of the property.

With regard to part (f), in the 2021-22 fiscal year, the operating costs for the NRC properties at 435 and 445 Ellice Avenue totalled $1,585,992.

Question No.1218—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

With regard to requests made under the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act (ATIP), since January 1, 2020, broken down by entity subject to the ATIP: (a) how many requests did not receive an extension but still took longer than 30 days to process; (b) how many requests took longer to process than the time noted on the initial extension; (c) how many requests did the government consider to be abandoned by the requestor; (d) what measures does the entity take to ensure that individuals processing ATIP requests make every possible effort to ensure that the requestor actually wants to abandon their request, as opposed to automatically assuming a request is abandoned after not receiving a response from the requestor to a follow-up inquiry; and (e) how many extensions of more than five years have been issued?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to questions (a), (b), (c) and (e), the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, or TBS, collects data for each fiscal year from each institution subject to the acts on the number of requests received, closed, outstanding, carried over, abandoned and responded to according to the legislative timeline of 30 days and extensions taken, broken down by length of time taken: 30 days or less, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days, 121 to 180 days, 181 to 365 days or more than 365 days. It collects data on the amount of time required to close requests: 0 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days, 61 to 120 days or 121 days or more. It also collects data on the number of requests that were closed beyond legislated timelines where an extension or no extension was taken.

TBS publishes a summary of this information annually in the access to information and privacy statistical report, as well as datasets that contain all the statistical data reported by all institutions, broken down by institution, at https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/access-information-privacy/statistics-atip.html. The information requested in parts (a), (b), (c) and (e) can be found, calculated and compared from year to year based on the published datasets. Institutions also individually report this information to Parliament in their annual reports on the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act, which institutions table in Parliament and publish online each fall.

The latest available data is for fiscal year 2021-22, from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. Data for fiscal year 2022-23 is expected to be collected by the end of September 2023 and published by December 31, 2023.

With regard to question (e), the dataset for the supplemental statistics for the 2021-22 fiscal year is also included at the link provided above, which includes information regarding requests that are still open as of March 31, 2022, divided by the year they were received. Therefore, all requests received in fiscal year 2015-16 and before under the column “Open Requests Within Legislated Timelines” are guaranteed to have been issued an extension of longer than 5 years.

TBS proactively makes the information sought in the above question publicly available every year towards the end of the calendar year.

With regard to question (d), TBS provides policies and directives as guidance to all institutions on all aspects of access to information and privacy. However, access to information and privacy, or ATIP, offices are responsible for ensuring that when processing requests, every possible effort is made to ensure that the requester really wants to abandon their request before closing it.

The definition provided to institutions for an abandoned request is as follows. A request is considered abandoned when the requester formally withdraws it, the required fees are not received within the timeline specified by the institution in a notice or the requester does not respond to a notice indicating that the request will be closed if they do not provide clarification within the specified timeline.

In order for a request to be processed, the requester must submit a request for access to a record “in writing to the government institution that has control of the record and shall provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution to identify the record with a reasonable effort”, as prescribed by section 6 of the Access to Information Act, accompanied by an application fee of five dollars, as prescribed by paragraph 11(1)(a) of the Access to Information Act and paragraph 7(1)(a) of the access to information regulations. Should these conditions not be met, institutions write to the requester seeking either the additional information or the application fee, setting a deadline for these to be provided. If the requester does not provide the missing information or fee in the prescribed time, the request is abandoned.

Question No.1221—

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

With regard to the government's $173 million funding for Medicago announced in 2020: (a) does the government or the Mitsubishi Chemical Group own the intellectual property developed as a result of this funding; (b) what measures, if any, did the government take to ensure that the intellectual property developed from the funding would remain in Canada; (c) did the government receive any long-term job commitments from Medicago or Mitsubishi Chemical Group in return for the $173 million, and, if so, what are the details of such commitments; and (d) did the government receive value for money in exchange for the $173 million, and, if not, what corrective action is being taken?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a), in projects supported by the strategic innovation fund, or SIF, the Crown does not have an ownership interest in intellectual property resulting from the project, nor will the Crown acquire new rights in existing intellectual property owned or licensed by the company. Strategic innovation fund contribution agreements require companies to own the background intellectual property or hold sufficient background intellectual property rights to enable their projects. Additionally, companies must hold sufficient rights to permit the use of the intellectual property resulting from their projects’ activities. The Government of Canada’s efforts with parent company Mitsubishi are to protect the company’s world-leading intellectual property science and retain top talent by assisting the workers impacted by the announcement.

With regard to part (b), the SIF of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, provides funding to projects that, one, have a strong research and development capacity or resources to develop new technologies and unique inventions; two, will build a strong intellectual property portfolio or broaden the scope of an already strong intellectual property portfolio; and three, can commercialize the intellectual property portfolio in Canada with strong public benefits. The Government of Canada makes strong efforts to protect and retain intellectual property in Canada. Recipients of the strategic innovation fund, including Medicago Inc., are required to take appropriate steps to protect the intellectual property resulting from activities supported through the program, including retention of project intellectual property in Canada. A recipient may be in default of its agreement if it fails to fulfill any of its contractual obligations, including intellectual property obligations. ISED will continue to work with Medicago and Mitsubishi on protecting their world-leading intellectual property science, retaining top talent and ensuring that all obligations under the agreement are fulfilled, including remedies.

With regard to part (c), the Medicago COVID-19 project announced 75 jobs created and 275 jobs maintained.

With regard to part (d), in October 2020, the SIF supported Medicago’s virus-like particles vaccine and biomanufacturing capabilities in Canada based on the expert advice of Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine task force, or VTF, and following robust due diligence, which included technical, market and financial reviews. This support was in order to build pandemic preparedness in the uncertainty of a public health crisis and to retain intellectual property in Canada. The supported project led to the successful development and regulatory approval of the only Canadian-based COVID-19 vaccine and the first plant-based vaccine in the world.

Question No.1224—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

With regard to the Canadian Sport Helpline: (a) how many calls, texts or emails has the line received since its inception, broken down by month; and (b) how many times was each sport or organization the subject of the calls, texts or emails in (a), broken down by sport or organization?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the data is the property of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, an independent organization from Sport Canada. As a start, the “Pilot Project Evaluation Report” of the Canadian sport helpline and investigation unit can be found on its website, at http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/documents/Evaluation_of_Safe_Sport_Initiatives_-_Final_report_31_March_2020.pdf.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1207, 1209 to 1211, 1213 to 1215, 1217, 1219, 1220, 1222 and 1225 to 1227 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No.1207—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

With regard to the International Mobility Program (IMP), since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the top 10 employers, in terms of the number of applications received by the government from the employers, for the IMP, and how many employees have each of the top 10 employers sponsored through the IMP; (b) for each employer in (a), what is the overview of the jobs that each has sponsored, including the (i) type of business, (ii) job titles and work description, (iii) wage ranges; (c) how much money was collected by the government in (i) 2021, (ii) 2022, from compliance fees related to the IMP; (d) how many separate employers were the fees in (c) collected from; (e) what is the number of employers currently ineligible for the IMP as a result of non-compliance; (f) how many investigations were conducted by (i) the Canada Border Services Agency (ii) Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada, related to violations of workers' rights or other suspected infractions of companies which used the IMP; (g) of the investigations in (f), what were the results, including, for each finding of wrongdoing, the (i) company's name, (ii) date the wrongdoing took place, (iii) description of the wrongdoing, (iv) punitive action taken by the government; (h) what was the total number of applications received each year under the IMP; and (i) what was the total number of applicants who arrived in Canada through the IMP each year?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1209—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to PacifiCan funding programs, broken down by federal electoral district in British Columbia since the agency’s inception: (a) what are the details of all projects that received funding under the Regional Innovation Ecosystems program stream, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding under the Regional Quantum Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (c) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Economic Development Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received, (iii) official language minority community that the funding supports; (d) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Community Economic Development and Diversification program, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (e) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Strategic Partnerships Initiative, including the (i) Indigenous community name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (f) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Strategic Innovation Fund, including the (i) name of the project, (ii) total amount of funding contribution, (iii) total investment leveraged, (iv) number of jobs created and maintained; (g) what is the total amount of funding delivered through past programs, including through the (i) Canadian Experiences Fund, (ii) Steel and Aluminum Initiative, (iii) Western Innovation Initiative, (iv) Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program; and (h) what is the total amount of funding delivered to each federal electoral district in British Columbia in (a) through (g)?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1210—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

With regard to PacifiCan COVID-19 relief and recovery funding, broken down by federal electoral district in British Columbia and fiscal year since the agency’s inception: (a) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Canada Community Revitalization Fund, including the (i) name of the community, (ii) name of the project, (iii) total amount of funding received; (b) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Jobs and Growth Fund, including the (i) name of the business or the organization, (ii) total amount of funding received; (c) what are the details of all projected that received funding through the Tourism Relief Fund, including the (i) name of the business or the organization, (ii) total amount of funding received; (d) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Aerospace Regional Recovery Initiative, including the (i) business or organization name, (ii) total amount of funding received; (e) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Regional Air Transportation Initiative, including the (i) name of the airport, the air carrier, the organization, the business, or the public institution, (ii) total amount of funding received; (f) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Major Festivals and Events Support Initiative, including the (i) name of the eligible festival or event, (ii) total amount of funding received; (g) what are the details of all projects that received funding through the Canadian Seafood Stabilization Fund, including the (i) name of the fish and seafood processor, (ii) total amount of funding received; and (h) what is the total amount of funding delivered to each federal electoral district through the Regional Relief and Recovery Fund?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1211—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

With regard to the government's executive vehicle fleet and travel expenses incurred by chauffeurs or drivers of those vehicles for travel outside of the National Capital Region (NCR): what are the details of all trips where travel expenses were claimed, including the (i) name and title of the minister, deputy minister, or high-ranking government official driven on the trip, (ii) date of departure from the NCR, (iii) date of return to the NCR, (iv) destination, (v) total expenses claimed, (vi) breakdown of the expenses by type (air transportation, accommodation, meals, etc.), (vii) reason for the trip?

(Return tabled)

Question No.1213—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

With regard to the Minister of Transport's trip to Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt in December 2022: (a) what were the total expenditures related to the trip, broken down by type of expense and who incurred the expense (minister, exempt staff, local embassy, etc.); (b) what was the minister's itinerary on each day of the trip, including who attended each item on the itinerary; and (c) what are the details, including the summary of terms, of any agreements which were signed during the trip?

(Return tabled)